Prime Minister Infinity – U.K. – Version Amundsen – 1.8.6

If you are a Prime Minister Infinity – U.K. pre-orderer and ordered before Jan. 30th, you are eligible for this release.

You can download this release by requesting a download e-mail at the link below.

Notes:

This release is a sneak peek. The game is being released early to start getting feedback.

The game will be filled in over the next two weeks (approximately).

Right now, I’m particularly interested in feedback on

leader attributes

campaign attributes

which parties (are we missing any that you think will be important?)

starting funds

percentages

Issues, incumbents, endorsers, and interviewers are not done, and feedback is welcome on these. You will see remnants of the American game in some places, including graphics – these will be changed. The main map interface is slow (and some other parts) – this will be sped up (we are now dealing with 650 constituencies x more than 10 parties, much more than any other game using the Infinity engine).

Feedback welcome!

Important: when you receive the e-mail, you will want to download the file from the “win pmi united kingdom” or “mac pmi united kingdom” link.

If for some reason there is no “win pmi united kingdom” or “mac pmi united kingdom” link in your e-mail and you are a Prime Minister Infinity- U.K. pre-orderer who ordered before Jan. 30th, please notify us and we will fix that for you.

It is a very good job, but the game is particulary slow. I have to wait a long time when I select a region, or a section in the campaign editor. However, I think the dates of the debates are wrong, because in the game it is all set in 2016. Percentages are very detailed, it is very good, and leaders are perfect to me. For the issues, I think you should add two issues particulary important: Islam and European Union. It is today very discussed issues, particulary for the Right. I remember David Cameron promised to organize a referendum about EU if he is reelected, and recent Islamic terrorist attak in Paris shoked all the county. As last comment, I have a suggestion for relations, because I think it should be “bad” between UKIP and Conservative, I remember David Cameron publicly said UKIP was “a party of alcoholics and racists”, so I don’t think relations should be at “normal”.

Nice test release! The leaders seem fine to me, and starting funds are relatively OK. I don’t think it needs any more parties at the moment, although Respect could theoretically be added due to their representation in parliament. One thing I did notice is that the majority of the constituency percentages need changing, although the idea of UKIP gaining Orkney and Shetland from the Lib Dems is rather amusing! The latest polls suggest Tories and Labour both on 280 seats, Lib Dems on 24, UKIP on 5, Greens on 1 and the SNP on 38… If you do need a hand with any aspect of the constituencies, I’m more than ready to help!

As for election issues, I’d suggest the following will be the most important (roughly in order):

The main problem I can see is the polling. The SNP should be outpolling Labour in Scotland and some of the constituencies are quite a way off what is realistic, such as the Greens on 40% in Norwich South.

A very good game, and nice to have more features compared to the 2010 version.

Here are my immediate comments after just a couple of hours playing:

1. It takes a long time to move to the next turn. But I guess you know that already.
2. Nick Clegg’s integrity is certainly not 5. In the eyes of the public it is max 3, if not 2 after his u-turn on university fees.
3. UKIP already hold Clacton and Rochester & Strood following by-elections. Nobody is even considering the idea that they will not retain Clacton this year, so that should be reflected in the figures.
4. The Greens are nowhere near 40% in Norwich South, and not particularly close to gaining Cambridge either. There best bets for wins aside from Brighton Pavillion are Norwich South and Bristol West, but they’ve still got quite a long way to go in both.
5. Respect currently have 1 MP following a by-election in 2012. Whilst they are not certain to retain the seat, they should probably be included to at least give them the chance in the game.
6. UKIP’s spending limit should be higher, having already received a number of large donations including one of £1million in December.
7. UKIP will never win Orkney and Shetland. Ever.
8. I assume you are going to add more potential party leaders. My suggestions would be:
Con: George Osborne, Boris Johnson, Teresa May, Michael Gove, Philip Hammond, Sajid Javid.
Lab: Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham, Alan Johnson, Chuka Umunna.
Lib Dem: Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, Tim Farron, Ed Davey.
UKIP: Paul Nuttall, Douglas Carswell, Suzanne Evans.
Green: Caroline Lucas.

Also, the policy positions need a lot of work. What is considered left wing in the USA is often quite a centrist policy here in Britain. UKIP, for example, is certainly not a centre-left party.

For example, on immigration, the policies should be something like this:

Far left: complete open borders, allowing in any migrants and asylum seekers. All illegal immigrants allowed to stay.
Left: minimal restrictions on migrants and no restrictions on asylum seekers. Illegal immigrants allowed to stay.
Centre-left: no restrictions on migrants coming to work, few restrictions on other migrants. Illegal immigrants allowed to stay after a certain period of time.
Centre: no restrictions on migrants coming to work, some restrictions on other migrants. Illegal immigrants allowed to stay after a certain period of time.
Centre-right: some restrictions on migrants coming to work, restrictions on other migrants, limited number of asylum seekers. Illegal immigrants encouraged to return home.
Right: only skilled migrants allowed to come to work, heavy restrictions on other migrants, limited number of asylum seekers. Illegal immigrants deported.
Far right: complete ban on all immigrants into the country. Existing immigrants encouraged to return home. No asylum seekers. Illegal immigrants deported.

The issues also need to change. For example, the NHS, the economy and immigration are high, whereas energy or defence aren’t particularly important. Iran is definitely not an issue at all.

The new interface looks great and the new game looks particularly fun.

In terms of leader attributes I think some of them are vastly wrong in places, and as a neutral I suggest a few things:
-Ed Miliband is the most unpopular major leader since Michael Foot and nearly of all time (since modern polling began), constantly in the news for being awkward, his charisma should be 2. He is however seen as more trustworthy in polls by the British public so maybe his integrity should be higher than Cameron’s
-Nigel Farage should have higher debating and higher Experience. He’s never been in Parliament as an MP before, but he has been a member of the EU Parliament for a substantial amount of time and run the party from a fringe party to a viable third/fourth option. His debating should also be at least a 4 (arguably a 5). Like him or not, he absolutely trashed Nick Clegg in the Europe debates and continues to score highly in gov/ media polls about his debating skills and how he appears as a leader.
-Nick Clegg should have lower debating, this would appear right for last election, but recent displays in the HoC and in debates such as that with Farage over Europe have seen him struggle to hold his ground.
-In addition to this his integrity should be around a 2, maybe a 3. Nick Clegg has dropped significantly in national polls especially after flip-flopping on major issues like Tuition fees etc.

Other than that the major parties seem fine.

You could make a small argument for Respect needing to be added, but the way it looks at the moment, the parties are great along with their starting funds.

And finally the percentages. They are great and have done a great job but the start should probably be a few percent higher nationally (hovering around 30%).

Some key issues that need to be included and possibly have options on have already been discussed by other commenters such as the NHS etc.

Just a few tid bits and I appreciate you said remnants of the American game would still be involved, but just in case you missed it, things such as creating a crusader (or known as a surrogate in America?) still has American senators. You probably know this but just thought I’d check.

Also can I ask if individual names of those in constituencies will be added like in the last one? I have lost my activation code and old email but I’m sure what I remember from the last one it went into great detail with that. Of course I appreciate this is a very early stage but that was just purely out of interest.

Other than that, it looks incredible and seems to be an amazing start to the game! Great job.

Looks set to be a great game when it’s finished. I can see there’s lots of work to be done with the issues, particularly. And as many others have already pointet out, the polls should be fixed. And there’s lots of work to be done with the debates, surrogates and endorsements.

One thing that catched my eyes were the misspelling of Ed Miliband’s surname, ingame it says “Milliband”, with two “L:s”, when it’s infact spelled with one “L”. Althoug that can be fixed easily.

Some issues I think should be included is:

– NHS (this will probably be the key issue for this election)
– Cost of living crisis (one of Labour’s key isses, wages and minim wage etch)
– Deficit reducton (both of the man parties are talking alot about it)
– Economic management (Tories are talking about long-term economic plans and so on)
– Energy prices (Miliband’s pledge for energy bills freeze)
– Housing (both of the main parties are talking about it)
– Europan Union (Cameron’s pledge to hold a referendum, UKIP’s rise and so on)
– Immigration (tighter border security, could be one of the key issues this election)

Issues that should NOT be included in the game is:

– Same-sex marriage (not that big of an issue anymore, not in the same way it is in the US anyway, it is already legalised in the UK)
– Iran (not an isse at all in British politcs as far as I’m concerned)
– Abortion
– Free trade

The most important themes according to me (I’m an amateur but I try to be up to speed on these things) are the ones that will be pushed by the parties:
Conservatives: OLTEP (our long term economic plan) wil be pushed relentlessly => tax & spend and economy/jobs/…
Labour: Have already unveiled their theme: NHS and Cost of Living (economy?)
SNP: Constitutional Reform!! (this would uniquely require different themes for Scotland)
LibDems: We’re the moderating factor in the coalition and ‘look at all we’ve done!’ (Experience issue?)
UKIP: Banging on about EU, Immigration, Same-sexmarriage.
Greens: environment, maybe Trident?

I much prefer the layout which was used for the 2010 Election Game not the Current American style layout. The polling needs to be higher for Labour and the Conservatives. It just needs to be a lot more simpler I do like the ability to choose seats to campaign in but the whole layout is just too complicated.

SNP are undervalued- they should be around 45%+ as a starting position and their target should be 50 seats.

The Greens have candidates in most of Wales, at the moment quite a few Welsh constituencies are lacking Greens (Alyn and Deeside, Delyn etc.) I suspect this is why the Green percentages in the constituencies they are standing in are so OP- they don’t have enough to distribute that support between.

Parties included seem right, there’s none I see the lack of or would exclude. The BNP, Britain First, National Front etc. won’t (Thank God) be a talking point in this election. In Scotland the SSP may have enough of an effect in some constituencies (Dundee West?) to swing the result away from the SNP (or perhaps towards them). It may also be a good idea to include the Scottish Greens as a separate entity (they are irl)- this enables Greens to appeal to independence-minded voters there without generating a backlash down South. It would also add new challenges to the game, although there would then be grounds for a Green Part of Northern Ireland- again, perhaps not a bad thing seeing as they are separate again, but may affect playability (slow down etc.). I back separating them anyway, but it’s not a huge issue.

In light of recent events I suggest giving the Greens around £2.5m- they’ve had a membership surge and some significant donations from individuals. This figure is also more realistic for the SNP as well.

Lib Dems will do reasonably well in some places, and Ukip won’t break through at all in Scotland (lost deposits quite likely). The starting position of Ukip taking Orkney and Shetland off the Liberals is hugely unlikely- Hell will freeze over before Orkney and Shetland elects anyone other than a Lib Dem!

Labour are more right-of-centre on immigration than their platform suggests at the moment- see David Lammy MP’s comments on their recent election material.

On the issue of platforms more generally, it seems they’re calibrated to US public opinion and are therefore too right wing.

Ukip seem to support renewable energy and government subsidy, immigration, taxes, gun control, environmental legislation… I assume this hasn’t been looked at yet, but if it has there’s still a lot to be done.

It would be nice to see the ending of the game make the actual playing of the game more worthwhile rather than a message saying you didnt form the next government for example.
Maybe you could include coalition negotiations, if that’s even possible that is.

Leadership – 4
(one of the most decisive party leaders when looking at polls)
Charisma – 3
(charismatic but not super charismatic, see PM’s questions)
Integrity – 3
(I would say that he cannot be higher than this due to the public view on his promises)
Stamina – 4
(lots of his strategies include him/other conservatives running around visiting places)
Experience – 4
(by virtue of his position)
Debating – 3
(he’s okay but rarely wins debates or convinces people outright, also angry)
Issue Familiarity – 4
(Quick off the mark on most issues, unlikely to be caught off guard)

Command – 4
(main party and quite disciplined)
Fund Raising – 4
(big on donors, always been quite good at finding incomes)
Strategic – 4
(organised main party)
Research – 4
(organised main party)
Ads – 3
(early ads have been okay but not super effective)
Polling – 3
(conservatives do not have the most accurate polling at all, see rochester)
Spin – 4
(quite effective at this, especially with Linton Crosby)
Ground – 3
(conservatives aren’t doing amazing on this regard atm, lost a lot to UKIP)
Corruption – 3
(have many allegations left at their door)

STARTING FUNDS – £10,000,000
(this is taken from looking at accounts, the massive drop in membership and the ever reducing amount the main parties are able to spend at general elections)

Leadership – 2
(really, really bad, not viewed as capable even by his own party)
Charisma – 2
(again, big flop, rarely inspires people and struggles because of it)
Integrity – 4
(rarely involved in anything scandalous, rarely considered to be lying)
Stamina – 4
(another leader who’s strategy is to get out amongst the voters)
Experience – 3
(ministerial and has been in gov a long time)
Debating – 3
(better at debates than most give him credit for, often equals cam)
Issue Familiarity – 4
(good with issues and well informed)

Command – 4
(main party and disciplined)
Fund Raising – 4
(has been able to draw sizeable funds to the party)
Strategic – 4
(organised main party)
Research – 4
(organised main party)
Ads – 3
(ill-made adverts in the past, none that truly succeed)
Polling – 3
(made errors in their predictions for heywood and middleton, almost lost)
Spin – 3
(somewhat effective but not so much as the cons)
Ground – 4
(labour activists are plentiful, even after losing some to the greens, they’ve gained some from the lib dems)
Corruption – 3
(lots of allegations thrown at labour over the parliament)

STARTING FUNDS – £14,000,000
(have received massive donations from unions and from new members and will easily outspend the tories this election)

Leadership – 4
(an expert in this regard, the rise of UKIP shows that)
Charisma – 4
(talented public speaker, very persuasive)
Integrity – 3
(you might even consider lowering this to a 2, dirt seems quite available for attackers)
Stamina – 4
(this man is everywhere, incredibly active and energetic campaigner)
Experience – 2
(would say that he hasn’t had the time on the public stage long enough to be any higher)
Debating – 4
(absolutely crushed nick clegg and has proven to be able to turn debates or conversations to his advantage)
Issue Familiarity – 4
(part of the entire reason he has got UKIP this far is due to his knowledge of what issues to tap into)

Command – 3
(organised but still not quite disciplined)
Fund Raising – 2
(still not pulling in the needed funds)
Strategic – 3
(organised but still not there yet)
Research – 3
(quite able when it comes to tapping into voters feelings)
Ads – 3
(ads have been quite successful in the past, although they are Marmite ads)
Polling – 3
(now have access to polling similar to the other parties and used this to their advantage)
Spin – 3
(getting better at this everyday, proven with the recent defection)
Ground – 4
(UKIP’s biggest advantage is their army of grassroots campaigners)
Corruption – 2
(could be lowered to 1, UKIP are scandalous)

STARTING FUNDS – £3-5,000,000
(their funding is hard to guess at but to my understanding they should be able to reach 3 mill but could reach 5, depends how you think it will pan out)

Leadership – 3
(still maintains a good level head and somewhat good control over his party)
Charisma – 3
(lost his shine after the last general election but still proves persuasive)
Integrity – 3
(lost a lot of his integrity after the last election, considered a breaker of promises by most)
Stamina – 3
(not as active as the other leaders)
Experience – 4
(he knows his stuff, and has been running the country for 5 years)
Debating – 3
(proven to have fallen behind during his debate with Nigel Farage)
Issue Familiarity – 4
(always quick off the mark, better than most other leaders)

Command – 4
(lib dems are one of the most organised parties, don’t diss them on this)
Fund Raising – 3
(still bring in cash)
Strategic – 4
(still organised on this)
Research – 4
(still organised on this)
Ads – 2
(lib dems adverts have proven to be unpersuasive recently)
Polling – 3
(on the same level as the other parties)
Spin – 3
(okay but haven’t been amazing on this account)
Ground – 4
(Lib dem footsoldiers are one of their strengths, they’ll hold many seats this way)
Corruption – 3
(pretty sound, could be upgraded to a 4 they rarely get accused of things)

STARTING FUNDS – £3-5,000,000
(this could go up or down but considering their poor performances I think it’s likely to be in the lower range)

Leadership – 3
(took over the party in a well and controlled manner)
Charisma – 2
(seriously lacks persuasive power, see daily politics interview)
Integrity – 3
(no scandals yet, but she’s not seen as a bastion of truth)
Stamina – 3
(not shown to be as active as the other leaders)
Experience – 2
(been a party leader the shortest amount of time, gaffes galore on daily politics)
Debating – 2
(again, she has a serious issue with public appearances even in interviews)
Issue Familiarity – 3
(she knows her stuff but hasn’t proven to be anything special)

I think it would be a mistake to put Labour’s funds as higher than the Tories, given the the Tories received more donations in the first three quarters of last year. I can’t find the figures for the fourth quarter, but I think the funds as they stand now are fine.

@Will: Even so, Labour have a massive amount of excess assets and have kept spending low in anticipation of the election. Their spending power is certainly equal to the conservatives if not higher. I wouldn’t give the conservatives any serious financial advantage on this.

George Osborne – Le – 3, In – 3, Ex – 3, IF – 4 (very knowledgable, knows what he’s talking about), Ch – 2 (kind of Nixon-esque, just lacks charm and turns people off), St – 4 (gets around a lot from what I can tell), De – 4 (not good on style, but excellent on substance in both in the House of Commons and in the TV debate he had with Darling and Cable in 2010)

Boris Johnson – Le – 4, In – 3, Ex – 3 (being Mayor of London isn’t quite enough to raise it above a 3 imo), IF – 3, Ch – 5 (probably the strongest English politician on this; has followers on both sides of the spectrum due to his colourfulness), St – 5 (likes to do daring activities such as dangling from a wire quite often), De – 2 (stumbling and generally not good in interviews and was poor in the Mayoral debates iirc)

Labour:

Ed Balls – Le – 3, In – 3, Ex – 3, IF – 4, Ch – 3, St – 2 (not in the greatest psychical shape), De – 4 (not a great speaker but is very combative and tends to get his points across well)

Also I wouldn’t trust ashcroft’s polling, his polling is known to be irratic at best although it might be useful at hinting parties current positions in certain constituencies but remember your pinch of salt. I would instead go with wikipedia’s averaged polling or uk polling reports averaged polling for a more accurate national and regional hint.

I’d love to advise on an individual level as by utilising uk polling report’s wealth of knowledge across all 650 constituencies you can get a very good idea of where the party’s are across the nation.

Also I would say that the liberals are an interesting party, anywhere where they are first or second parties they are still quite strong but everywhere else they’ve lost almost all their support.

I don’t mind the results changing as you go through counting the votes, although I did prefer the old system of each region announcing their results in turn.

I do not like the fact that you have to click through all the seats in each region to see which ones you won. A single list of all the results of all the seats in that region would be much more user-friendly.

For an idea of relative spending figures, the FT article from 16 January, “Conservatives set to outgun Labour on general election spending”, suggests Cons will spend up to £19.5m, Lab £12m. Everyone else is fine: LDs historically spent around £4-5m. Ukip should have as much as LDs.

One more title I didn’t mention is Ms. Leanne Wood.
The important parties are all in the game. Respect should be treated like independents; they’ll be really small.
“Senate Majority-To-Be” should instead refer to being Prime Minister, but for most parties, which are small, this line doesn’t make as much sense as in the two-party fight for the Senate majority.
The nickname/motto/date when you hover over the flags should all be changed, depending on whether they are UK, England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Perhaps these should just be removed for the UK; they aren’t as prominent as in the USA.
“Surrogates” would be called “Campaigners” in the UK.
Percentages should be much higher for the SNP and lower for Labour throughout Scotland. The Lib Dem percentages should be more skewed; they should lose lots of votes in seats they didn’t win in 2010, and lose fewer in seats they won against the Conservatives.
Ukip are incumbents in Clacton (Home Counties North) and they should be very strongly favoured to win that seat. They are also incumbents in Rochester and Strood (Home Counties South).
As other people have written, there are websites like may2015 that give very rough forecasts of local results. That would be the biggest improvement that could be made to percentages right now.

Hopefully the Ads/financial will get fixed. To run an ad nation wide, it costs over 52 million pounds per turn. Also, the total vote count when I just played was over 1.3 billion voters. This might be at least part of the issue with the cost of running ads.

Immigration (4)
– Progressively reduce immigration controls and increase legal rights for asylum speakers (left)
– Aim to reduce low-skill immigration while ensuring that high skill migrants and university students are not deterred (center)
– Make immigrants wait before they can claim benefits and aim to reduce immigration to below 100,000 (center-right)
– Introduce a system of controlled immigration, focusing on attracting skilled migrants and deport illegal immigrants (right)

European Union (2)
– Legislate for a referendum on membership in the next parliament, campaigning for a vote to stay in (left)
– No need for a referendum, current law makes necessary provisions, support membership (center-left)
– Legislate for a referendum on membership to take place in the middle of the next parliament, negotiate for reform (center-right)
– Legislate for an immediate referendum on membership, campaigning for a vote to leave (right)
– Immediately legislate to leave the European Union (far-right)